What about bringing back the injury list

[Moranis]

This used to be a thing back in the day I believe.  I wonder if the NBA brought it back, if it might help with load management.  So, if a player is going to sit out, they have to go on the injury list, which means a minimum of a certain number of games missed.  I think 3 games seems reasonable.  So if you are going to sit out a game you could otherwise play, you have to miss 2 other games.  It wouldn't end load management, but would make it more strategic.  I'd also give each player 2 or 3 exceptions.  So a guy comes down a fever, you can use the exception and he can miss 1 game without being on the injury list.  The league would be responsible for determining if a player is a legitimate DNP Coaches decision so teams don't get into trouble with bench players and what not and so teams don't try to usurp the rule by having a player dress who then just isn't played.  You can still rest and load manage, but it comes at the expense of 3 straight games missed.

[LilRip]

Idk if it will address the problem of load management really. Here are some things that could happen to circumvent it:

1. The star player suits up but doesn’t end up playing. It’s not the strangest thing. I mean, we’ve seen coaches not play a guy because they slacked off in practice or were late or something.
2. The star player enters the game with something like 2.7 secs left to end the half and then doesn’t play again
3. The star player starts and is subbed out after the first whistle and never re enters.

[jambr380]

I don't hate the idea, but couldn't teams just get around this by suiting up a certain player and then not playing him at all?

You brought it up, but the rule about missing one game for a legitimate reason, but having to miss three for an illegitimate one could get awfully hazy. Also, didn't they expand roster sizes to deal with the injury list gymnastics? Would they need to cut the roster size back down?

Edit: TP to lilrip for addressing my first point.

[SHAQATTACK]

I remember that .

Sounds good to me

[ederson]

Hate it. I don't care if a casual fan who goes once per year to a basketball game will see James or anyone play.

I care about my team and  what will maximize the chances of a successful season. If this means that my star player takes 15 games off then so be it.

[Adelaide Celt]

Hate it. I don't care if a casual fan who goes once per year to a basketball game will see James or anyone play.

I care about my team and  what will maximize the chances of a successful season. If this means that my star player takes 15 games off then so be it.

[Roy H.]

I think we'd just see a lot more DNP-CDs.  With a 13 man active roster, it's easy for a coach to sit a star player and still have a deep enough roster to compete nightly.

I don't mind the basic idea, though.

[Moranis]

Idk if it will address the problem of load management really. Here are some things that could happen to circumvent it:

1. The star player suits up but doesn’t end up playing. It’s not the strangest thing. I mean, we’ve seen coaches not play a guy because they slacked off in practice or were late or something.
2. The star player enters the game with something like 2.7 secs left to end the half and then doesn’t play again
3. The star player starts and is subbed out after the first whistle and never re enters.

I addressed that.  I said the league would be responsible for determining those things.  The league determines the team played fast and loose, the player is out for the next 3 games and the team is fined.  Teams would stop getting fast and loose with the rules real quick.

[Fafnir]

When there was an injured list the active roster limit was 12, and you had a 3 man injured list.

They got rid of the injured list while expanding the roster to 15, which is now actually 17 with two-way contracts.

So I don't think this idea serves any purpose, if you think you need more bodies expand the roster to 16 (18).

[Moranis]

When there was an injured list the active roster limit was 12, and you had a 3 man injured list.

They got rid of the injured list while expanding the roster to 15, which is now actually 17 with two-way contracts.

So I don't think this idea serves any purpose, if you think you need more bodies expand the roster to 16 (18).

It is about load management.  You want to stop teams from resting players a random game here or there, you make it a 3 game minimum.  Players still get rested but much more strategic.

[Fafnir]

We would just get more rest days I think then. So mission accomplished for the NBA?

I don't see the point. The bigger rosters allow for DNPs without hurting as much in the old days and teams already have shown they'd fiddle with any injured list to their advantage. They'd do the same with DNPs. The idea that ANY injury would mandate missing 3 games would be a no go from the teams. Plenty of ankle turns are truly just a day or to injury for inflammation to calm down.

Messing with roster rules requires CBA negotiation as well.